London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202228106)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228106

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 August 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water pressure issues.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy started in January 2010. The property is a house converted into 2 flats. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor. The resident shares the property with her partner and 2 young children. The resident suffers from fibromyalgia.
  2. On 31 December 2020, the resident reported issues to the landlord about the water pipes in her property, saying that the last plumber that attended had been rude and unprofessional. The records indicate that the landlord arranged for the water supplier to attend. It confirmed to the resident on 11 February 2021 that the water supplier would be inspecting the property the next day. 
  3. On 26 May 2021, the resident reported that her water pressure was affected when her neighbour in the flat below used water. On 17 June 2021, internal correspondence of the landlord shows that an operative attended and confirmed that both properties are sharing a mains pipe, so it could not resolve the issue for the resident. An internal email of the landlord on 29 June 2021 said that it could consider splitting the pipe if it was in a communal hallway, but the water supplier would need to run a pressure test.
  4. On 6 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advised that she would need to contact the water supplier to address the issue. The resident raised a further maintenance request on 16 July 2021 because the water supplier attended, however, the water pressure issue remained. On 13 January 2022 and 28 January 2022, the resident chased the follow up work order with the landlord.
  5. On 18 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that when her neighbour uses water, she does not have access to water. She said that the water supplier attended and advised that it was an internal issue for the landlord to address. She was unhappy about the length of time the landlord took to address the repair.
  6. On 20 May 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that the water supplier was attending on that day to complete work on external pipes. It said that the low water pressure was not its fault and the water supplier had rectified the issue. It confirmed it would provide the resident with a stop cock on 15 June 2022. There is no evidence that the resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 at that time.
  7. On 28 June 2022, the landlord’s repair notes show that the issue was not the stopcock, rather the same main was supplying 2 flats, so when the resident’s neighbour uses water, the pressure drops in her flat.
  8. On 27 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the property had been converted into 2 flats with 1 shared water mains. As such, the only way to separate the water supply was if the resident arranged a new water meter installation. The landlord stated that it would not pay for the cost of the new installation.
  9. On 23 January 2023, the resident made another complaint because she was unable to access water when her neighbour below was using it. She was unhappy that it took the landlord over a year to investigate and provide a resolution to the issue. She was unhappy that she was expected to pay for the water installation because the landlord was responsible for fittings and fixtures within the property. She said this financial burden had the potential to make her homeless. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to rectify the water pressure issue.
  10. On 13 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It advised the resident that her request would be classified as improvement works and as such, the landlord will not accept any responsibility for the cost of the new installation. It confirmed that this decision was made in compliance with its policies and procedures and stated, “I will now be closing your case as your concerns have been addressed”.
  11. On 13 February 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that as the owner of the property the repair was the landlord’s responsibility because she could not take the installation with her should she leave the property and did not understand how she could be liable for the repair.
  12. On 4 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It confirmed that it had considered installing a pressure pump, but this was not possible. The only way for it to increase the water pressure to her property was to provide a separate water supply which would require a new water meter to both flats. It said that this would be considered improvement works and the resident would need to get agreement with her neighbour to implement this improvement. The landlord said it would facilitate communication with the water supplier should the resident wish to install a new water meter. It offered compensation of £380 broken down as:
    1. Delay in stage 2 complaint response: £50
    2. Inconvenience and distress: £230
    3. Time and effort: £40
    4. Distress: £60.

Post complaints process

  1. On 10 May 2023, after the resident rejected the compensation offer, the landlord offered a further £250 as a goodwill gesture to the resident. The resident replied on the same day requesting further compensation for distress and inconvenience because she suffered from fibromyalgia which was impacted by the restriction to accessing hot water.
  2. On 16 May 2023 the landlord replied that it would not increase its offer of compensation and encouraged the resident to update her account on its website to include her condition so that it could treat any issues with a higher priority compared to normal service level agreements. 
  3. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she remained unhappy because installing a new water meter would cost £4000 which would cause her financial difficulty and distress. She said that the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement because she was not liable for the fixtures and fittings. She felt that she should have access to her water supply, even if her neighbour was accessing his. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to acknowledge that this was a repair and not an improvement and wanted the landlord to repair the water pressure issue. She had 2 young children and suffered from fibromyalgia and required access to hot water.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water pressure issues.

  1. The landlord has an obligation in law to maintain the fixtures and fittings within the property. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the installations for the supply of water to the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings for water. Its repair policy states that the landlord will not undertake repairs to low water pressure for cold water drinking supply as the water board is responsible. The repair policy says that it is responsible for drops in pressure for hot water.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show that the water pressure issue was because both flats were connected to the same mains. The main supply is located in the ground floor flat and when the ground floor tenant used water, pressure dropped in the resident’s property. With this information, the landlord should have considered the likelihood that the water pressure issue was internal. While it was within its repairs policy to direct the resident to contact the water supplier in the first instance, it could have been more proactive by communicating directly with the water supplier to establish its obligations.
  4. The landlord had a clear obligation to maintain the fixtures and fitting of the building. It is evident that the landlord considered other options of repairing the issue, including splitting the pipes or inserting a pump. Its investigations concluded that the only way to maintain appropriate water pressure to the resident’s flat was to install a separate water supply. It was unreasonable for the landlord to attempt to transfer its obligations and costs on to the resident.
  5. The landlord’s conclusion that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair the water pressure because a separate water meter would be classed as an improvement was unreasonable. The resident had not specifically requested a separate water meter, she had requested her water pressure to be repaired. This was a maintenance issue for which the landlord was responsible. The resident resided in the property since 2010 and raised the issue of water pressure in 2020 which indicates that the issue developed over time. 
  6. It is evident that there were delays beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord initially signposted the resident to the water supplier and liaised with them to investigate issues with the supply. In May 2022, the water supplier attended the property and carried out external works, but the landlord identified on 29 June 2022 that the issue was internal. However, the landlord concluded that it was not responsible for the repair on 27 July 2022 and the repair remains outstanding. The landlord is responsible for delays from this point on, which, in this Service’s opinion were unreasonable.
  7. After the stage 2 complaint response, the resident advised the landlord that she suffers from fibromyalgia which was impacted by the restriction to access to hot water. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to update her condition on its systems so that it could treat issues with a higher priority. While this was appropriate advice there was no evidence that the landlord took any action to address the repair issue which remains outstanding. 
  8. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water pressure issues. This is because it failed in its obligation to repair the issue and unreasonably classified the works as an improvement instead of a maintenance issue for which it was responsible. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. She reported distress at being asked to pay for the repair for which she was not responsible. She reported that not having access to hot water exacerbated her fibromyalgia and it was inconvenient as she had 2 young children.
  9. This Service has made an order of compensation to represent the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. When considering compensation, it is acknowledged that the resident did not lose her water supply, rather, the pressure dropped when her neighbour was using his, and some delay was beyond the landlord’s control. However, the landlord has delayed significantly in repairing the issue and the repair remains outstanding. It has been particularly inconvenient that the resident must use water at different times to her neighbour.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident 5 working days beyond its timeframes at stage 1. It responded 36 working days beyond its timeframes at stage 2. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £50 for this failure. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failure, the offer of compensation was not sufficient in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detail and empathy to the resident’s situation. It advised the resident that it had complied with its policies and procedures but did not expand on which policies or procedures it was referring to. It further said that it was closing the case because it had addressed the resident’s concerns. This was an inappropriate response because there was no evidence at this point that it had contacted the resident and addressed her concerns. 
  4. The landlord acknowledged its delay and failings in its communication which caused distress to the resident. However, it did not uphold the complaint itself as it maintained that it was not responsible for the repair. The evidence shows that at stage 2 the complaint handler requested a second opinion from a surveyor in relation to its responsibilities for the repair. However, this Service has not been provided with any evidence of a review from a surveyor or manager before it issued a stage 2 complaint response.
  5. The landlord’s complaint procedure should be an opportunity for the landlord to identify failings and put things right for the resident. The landlord should have used its complaint procedure effectively to acknowledge that it had failed in its repair responsibilities and to put things right for the resident. 
  6. The landlord offered £230 for distress and inconvenience and a further £60 for distress. It is unclear how this compensation related to the failings identified or why it listed distress twice. When the resident rejected the compensation offer, it offered a further £250. Again, it is unclear why it increased the offer when it did not uphold the substantive issue of the complaint.  
  7. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it delayed in its complaint responses, and it failed to use its complaint procedure appropriately to identify its repair failings and put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of water pressure issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, it is ordered for the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Arrange with the resident for a qualified person to survey the property and the water pressure issue in line with its obligations.
    3. Following the above survey, provide the resident and this Service with an action plan containing timescales of when it will complete any necessary works to resolve the water pressure issue.
    4. pay the resident compensation of £1250, compromising:
      1. £1000 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in responding to the resident’s reports of water pressure issues.
      2. £250 for the failing identified in its complaint handling.
      3. If it has already paid the £630 it offered in its complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount payable.